RFC: Don't output symbol version requirement for non-DT_NEEDED libs
Dmitry V. Levin
Thu Nov 27 23:42:00 GMT 2014
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25:13AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/27/2014 03:16 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > So, absent someone implementing a glibc fix, how about we just drop
> > the symbol versioning for weak symbols, when their defining library
> > won't be in DT_NEEDED? Note that if "f" above was a strong symbol,
> > ld will still complain with "./libb.so: error adding symbols: DSO
> > missing from command line".
> This seems like the wrong thing to do, particularly since it violates
> the principle of least surprise. I would expect the versioned symbol
> to stay versioned.
> What's wrong with fixing this in glibc?
A few words about compatibility: ld with the proposed patch applied
would behave the same way as gold.
More information about the Binutils